Further Confirmation of Hersh and Why bin Laden Was Murdered

Michael S. Rozeff
May. 14, 2015

Why did Obama order Osama bin Laden murdered? The Pakistanis bargained for his death to avoid their own embarrassment. However, it suited the U.S. also to silence him or they would not have agreed. This was an easy concession for the U.S. to make to Pakistan. He would not be around to tell the world that the Pakistan ISI had known where he was for 5 years and kept him under house arrest. He would not be around to reveal that the Saudis were paying the bills. He would not have a soapbox at a trial. Obama would score big political points. Bin Laden’s death took the spotlight off Saudi support for al Qaeda. It took attention away from his own connections to Saudi hijackers who crashed into the Trade Towers. Remember that 28 pages of the Senate report on 9/11 are still redacted and they point directly at Saudis. They probably point to key Saudis living in Florida who helped organize the attacks and who fled the country. Hence, although the U.S. had waged a 10-year war on Afghanistan based on the excuse that the Taliban had not turned over bin Laden to the U.S., the government when it could lay its hands on bin Laden decided simply to murder him instead.

On August 7, 2011, R.J. Hillhouse published an account of bin Laden’s killing that coincides with that of Hersh. She firmly thinks that his sources differ from hers. That would provide independent confirmation of both writers if both her and his leakers tapped into the same accurate source of information. That would provide confirmation of Hillhouse’s story (which is essentially Hersh’s story) if Hersh’s leakers learned the story from her leakers. If both his and her leakers turn out to be the same, which she thinks very unlikely, it means that, although there is a renewed effort being made by these leakers to get the story out, where the two stories agree there is no additional confirmation.

The main reason I suggest that her earlier report provides confirmation of Hersh arises from something she said today in an interview, which was

“my understanding was there was great concern with the security guys "¦ Everything that I've written on national intelligence, [that] was the first time I ever had a [former] senior member of the intelligence community signal me to basically go black "¦ I've never been waved off like I was signaled to [then].”

She was strongly warned by a high U.S. intelligence official to drop the matter and say no more. She says that because of this she destroyed her notes with her sources.

While some lesser intelligence sources wanted to leak the details and set the record straight, the higher officials did not. There are indeed a number of lower-ranked CIA operatives who think that their outfit, the government and the nation are damaged by false scenarios and wars based on phony intelligence. But those in the top echelon wanted to cover up the true story of how bin Laden was found, what happened during the raid, and how is body was disposed of.

The fact that she was strongly waved off tells us that the government wanted to cover up what really happened, which is what she had reported but which was not widely circulated or accepted. The government wanted to tell its own fabricated story. This obvious inference is what supports Hersh’s allegations of various government lies and what supports the Hillhouse-Hersh version of the truth.

A 2012 account of the episode in a BBC article says “Pakistan was not tipped off in advance about the raid…” That was the official U.S. story, designed to shield Pakistani and Saudi Arabian intimate knowledge of and connection to bin Laden’s compound at Abbottabad. Most stories focused on the details of the preparation for the raid and the raid itself. There was much confusion over what occurred. The accounts raised the question of why the unarmed bin Laden was murdered. No satisfactory answer was ever given by the U.S. government.

Even though the White House conceded that bin Laden was unarmed, it still argued that the SEAL killers acted properly because weapons were nearby. The story became this: “The latest account, which could not be verified by the Guardian, claimed that Bin Laden was shot in his house when the commandos saw he was within reach of an assault rifle and pistol.” The White House spokesman said “I think resistance does not require a firearm.”

This story, which persists to this day, is a weak justification for murdering bin Laden. Clearly, the intent and instructions all along must have been to kill him on sight.

Bin Laden was ordered killed to keep him from talking about his captors, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was to avoid embarrassment and having to deal with the captive through some kind of judicial proceeding. When the U.S. played up its own role in finding bin Laden and played down the role of a Pakistani informant, one goal was the same: keep the spotlight off of Pakistan. Another goal was to keep Saudi Arabia out of the picture. A third goal was to score points with the American public over a victory that was American.